Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
New Facebook is here!
Bonjour! Comment allez-vous? J'esperis ta jour est juste bien! Il neige pour deux jours et a'jourd hui [again].
But anyway, going back to my post tonight, the new Facebook design/layout just appeared on my profile. Actually, that's few hours ago. If you have it already, do you like it? I like its more navigable appearance, but seems not very appealing nor attractive to users to perspectives now. It's so old-fashioned and this is the technology era now, Facebook! It's time to make NEW changes, not going back to old layouts back in 2003 or whatever.
Here's what it looks like now:
But despite of that, Facebook is now loading faster and more navigable. Thanks, Facebook, and Happy Birthday!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vIY7rLFIzlLcZuidw3Urmrv7GZTtgrzZYlKC2s3NduDQWYYPmLoH_VZ89SjlTcvfo0lRPitKDRPDlF3G7h9N8SVFOXhSeBq3JpAsNFUhM7GTA1DhJH5bvHRIB0Zh-a9VxMrc0Kq4ESDEYKqEuqvat1=s0-d)
Je regrette pour le francais!
Completely unrelated to the topic but, hey, I'm back to blogging again! I have not yet blogged myself for a few weeks now, but since it's snowing tomorrow again, I might take a few minutes to right this.
If you're wondering what the text means above, it means, basically, Hello! How are you? I hope your day is just right! It snowed for two days and today again [couldn't translate that properly in English]. I'm sorry for the French!
But anyway, going back to my post tonight, the new Facebook design/layout just appeared on my profile. Actually, that's few hours ago. If you have it already, do you like it? I like its more navigable appearance, but seems not very appealing nor attractive to users to perspectives now. It's so old-fashioned and this is the technology era now, Facebook! It's time to make NEW changes, not going back to old layouts back in 2003 or whatever.
Here's what it looks like now:
But despite of that, Facebook is now loading faster and more navigable. Thanks, Facebook, and Happy Birthday!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
MSNBC/AP: Scientists says alien life could already be on Earth
Scientist: Alien life could already be on Earth
Variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could be under our noses
By Raphael G. Satter
The Associated Press
LONDON - For the past 50 years, scientists have scoured the skies for radio signals from beyond our planet, hoping for some sign of extraterrestrial life. But one physicist says there's no reason alien life couldn't already be lurking among us — or maybe even in us.
Paul Davies, an award-winning Arizona State University physicist known for his popular science writing said Tuesday that life may have developed on Earth not once but several times.
Davies said the variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could still be hanging around "right under our noses — or even in our noses."
"How do we know all life on Earth descended from a single origin?" he told a conference at London's prestigious Royal Society, which serves as Britain's academy of sciences. "We've just scratched the surface of the microbial world."
The idea that alien micro-organisms could be hiding out here on Earth has been discussed for a while, according to Jill Tarter, the director of the U.S. SETI project, which listens for signals from civilizations based around distant stars.
She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies earlier laid out in a 2007 article published in Scientific American in which he asked: "Are aliens among us?"
So far, there's no answer. And ever finding one would be fraught with difficulties, as Davies himself acknowledged.
Unusual organisms abound — including chemical-eating bacteria which hide out deep in the ocean and organisms that thrive in boiling-hot springs — but that doesn't mean they're different life forms entirely.
"How weird do they have to be suggest a second genesis as opposed to just an obscure branch of the family tree?" he said. Davies suggested that the only way to prove an organism wasn't "life as we know it" was if it were built using exotic elements which no other form of life had.
Such organisms have yet to be found. Davies also noted that less than 1 percent of all the world's bacteria had been comprehensively studied — leaving plenty of time to find unusual organisms.
"You cannot tell just by looking that a microbe has some radically different inner chemistry," he said.
Davies' call for alien-hunting scientists to look to their own backyards came as one of the pioneers of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence told the conference the job of finding proof of alien life in outer space may be more difficult than previously thought.
Frank Drake, who conducted the first organized search for alien radio signals in 1960, said that the Earth — which used to pump out a loud mess of radio waves, television signals and other radiation — has been steadily getting quieter as its communications technology improves.
Drake cited the switch from analogue to digital television — which uses a far weaker signal — and the fact that much more communications traffic is now relayed by satellites and fiber optic cables, limiting its leakage into outer space.
"Very soon we will become very undetectable," he said. If similar processes were taking place in other technologically advanced societies, then the search for them "will be much more difficult than we imagined."
But Drake said scientists at SETI were excited by the possibility of using lasers to send super-bright flashes of light into space for a tiny fraction of a second. The flashes could theoretically be seen up by an advanced civilization up to 1,000 light years away, and Tarter said infrared versions of the devices could possibly send beams even further.
But Drake noted that the interstellar equivalent to turning a flashlight on and off only works if a prospective alien civilization wants to get in touch to begin with.
"For this to work ... There has to be altruism in the universe," he said.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083220/ns/technology_and_science-science/?GT1=43001
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2010 MSNBC.com
Variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could be under our noses
By Raphael G. Satter
The Associated Press
LONDON - For the past 50 years, scientists have scoured the skies for radio signals from beyond our planet, hoping for some sign of extraterrestrial life. But one physicist says there's no reason alien life couldn't already be lurking among us — or maybe even in us.
Paul Davies, an award-winning Arizona State University physicist known for his popular science writing said Tuesday that life may have developed on Earth not once but several times.
Davies said the variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could still be hanging around "right under our noses — or even in our noses."
"How do we know all life on Earth descended from a single origin?" he told a conference at London's prestigious Royal Society, which serves as Britain's academy of sciences. "We've just scratched the surface of the microbial world."
The idea that alien micro-organisms could be hiding out here on Earth has been discussed for a while, according to Jill Tarter, the director of the U.S. SETI project, which listens for signals from civilizations based around distant stars.
She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies earlier laid out in a 2007 article published in Scientific American in which he asked: "Are aliens among us?"
So far, there's no answer. And ever finding one would be fraught with difficulties, as Davies himself acknowledged.
Unusual organisms abound — including chemical-eating bacteria which hide out deep in the ocean and organisms that thrive in boiling-hot springs — but that doesn't mean they're different life forms entirely.
"How weird do they have to be suggest a second genesis as opposed to just an obscure branch of the family tree?" he said. Davies suggested that the only way to prove an organism wasn't "life as we know it" was if it were built using exotic elements which no other form of life had.
Such organisms have yet to be found. Davies also noted that less than 1 percent of all the world's bacteria had been comprehensively studied — leaving plenty of time to find unusual organisms.
"You cannot tell just by looking that a microbe has some radically different inner chemistry," he said.
Davies' call for alien-hunting scientists to look to their own backyards came as one of the pioneers of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence told the conference the job of finding proof of alien life in outer space may be more difficult than previously thought.
Frank Drake, who conducted the first organized search for alien radio signals in 1960, said that the Earth — which used to pump out a loud mess of radio waves, television signals and other radiation — has been steadily getting quieter as its communications technology improves.
Drake cited the switch from analogue to digital television — which uses a far weaker signal — and the fact that much more communications traffic is now relayed by satellites and fiber optic cables, limiting its leakage into outer space.
"Very soon we will become very undetectable," he said. If similar processes were taking place in other technologically advanced societies, then the search for them "will be much more difficult than we imagined."
But Drake said scientists at SETI were excited by the possibility of using lasers to send super-bright flashes of light into space for a tiny fraction of a second. The flashes could theoretically be seen up by an advanced civilization up to 1,000 light years away, and Tarter said infrared versions of the devices could possibly send beams even further.
But Drake noted that the interstellar equivalent to turning a flashlight on and off only works if a prospective alien civilization wants to get in touch to begin with.
"For this to work ... There has to be altruism in the universe," he said.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083220/ns/technology_and_science-science/?GT1=43001
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2010 MSNBC.com
Monday, January 25, 2010
itsme: SILENCE: A FORM OF VIOLENCE OR JUST SHYNESS?
It's been a long long time since I posted my own post. My schedule has been very hectic and a lot, really, is going on with my life and the world! However, I am still going to have my blog up for a few YEARS before I grow old and marry.
My topic for this week on itsme is SILENCE. Every one describes me that I'm silent, and he/she is also wondering what is wrong with me!
If you're reading to this post right now, thanks! Your visit was just added to Google Analytics! :)
Totally random, sorry.
But returning back to the topic, I want to clarify this to show you a little bit of myself. I know I'm getting personal again, but I got to do it!
Silence is defined as "relative or lacking of audible sound." On other cases, psychologically, it is often performed if something violently is going on (or let's define it as form of indirect violence), or diffidence. Well, I am either of those, sometimes. But most of the time, I don't really talk because of shyness. You might call it "social phobia," but I don't think so; I often find myself chatting with schoolmates on Facebook! My silence has no purpose; but it really looks rather confusing, i know. I try and I am trying to be as loud as I can, remove my accent so that they'll understand me, and befriend others and talk to them! [That is one of my New Years Resolutions, BTW]
I am not a Mandelan fan, but I want to be President someday :]
-Josh
My topic for this week on itsme is SILENCE. Every one describes me that I'm silent, and he/she is also wondering what is wrong with me!
If you're reading to this post right now, thanks! Your visit was just added to Google Analytics! :)
Totally random, sorry.
But returning back to the topic, I want to clarify this to show you a little bit of myself. I know I'm getting personal again, but I got to do it!
Silence is defined as "relative or lacking of audible sound." On other cases, psychologically, it is often performed if something violently is going on (or let's define it as form of indirect violence), or diffidence. Well, I am either of those, sometimes. But most of the time, I don't really talk because of shyness. You might call it "social phobia," but I don't think so; I often find myself chatting with schoolmates on Facebook! My silence has no purpose; but it really looks rather confusing, i know. I try and I am trying to be as loud as I can, remove my accent so that they'll understand me, and befriend others and talk to them! [That is one of my New Years Resolutions, BTW]
I am not a Mandelan fan, but I want to be President someday :]
-Josh
THE ROOT: How Barack Obama is Paving the Way for a Palin Presidency
How Barack Obama Is Paving the Way for a Palin Presidency
By: Jon Jeter
Posted: January 25, 2010 at 7:22 AM
You don’t have to be psychic to read the tea leaves. Be afraid, be very afraid.
It does not take a pollster, partisan or psychic to see a harbinger of things to come in Massachusetts voters’ choice of a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. If Barack Obama’s next three years in the White House are anything like his first, he will surely be a one-term president.
And for black America, that’s the good news.
Because if history is any guide, the truly awful news is that the smart money is on Sarah Palin to replace Obama in the White House.
Foreshadowing a Palin presidency is a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism, which is not to suggest that Obama is an innocent bystander in his reversal of fortune. It is certainly true that he inherited a capsized economy. But his administration has done little to right the ship. And no president can survive double-digit unemployment and 30,000 foreclosures a month for long.
“But what about Ronald Reagan,” the skeptics are no doubt asking now, “who was saddled with a deep recession in his first term, yet bounced back to win reelection in a landslide?” The difference is epic: Reagan’s poor-performing economy was stalled; Obama’s is broken, and despite all the sanguine media talk of a recovery, the crisis shows no signs of abating anytime soon.
Even before the recession hit, there were more maids, cashiers and waitresses in the United States than factory workers, and, when inflation is accounted for, workers have not had a raise in almost 40 years. The trillions of taxpayer dollars showered on Wall Street has produced record profits and fat bonuses, but has done nothing to loosen clogged credit lines. Lending in October of last year was down nearly 15 percent from the previous year—and the White House refuses to launch a New Deal-like jobs program, or provide any substantive relief to borrowers who are in over their head on mortgages, student loans or credit cards.
According to a recent Bloomberg News poll, only 8 percent of consumers say they plan to spend more in 2010, and with the circulation of cash slowing to a snail’s pace, you don’t need Paul Krugman to answer this question: If nobody’s lending, and nobody’s spending, how does your economy grow?
It doesn’t.
In fact, the economic crisis that is most comparable to the current situation is not the Great Depression, or the 1981 slowdown, but Japan’s decade-long recession that began with the bust of its real-estate bubble in the early ‘90s.
A protracted stagnation will likely produce competing responses from voters in 2012, both of them bad for Obama. Polls show that African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the president even though the unemployment rate for blacks is nearly twice the national average. That won’t change much, if at all, in the next three years. But will the laid–off African-American workers, who have exhausted their jobless benefits, turn out to vote in Gary, Ind., Detroit, Cleveland, Philly and Tampa with the same enthusiasm, and in the same numbers, as they did in 2008? Black New Yorkers certainly didn’t turn out last year for Bill Thompson, the African-American Democratic mayoral nominee, who lost narrowly to Michael Bloomberg, the Republican incumbent. Voter turnout was the city’s lowest in almost a century.
Conversely, while the economic climate is likely to leave the country’s most reliably liberal voting bloc demoralized and disengaged from an electoral process, this same dispossession has historically energized white, conservatives—particularly when cast in a racial hue. Consider the post-Reconstruction era, or the post-civil rights era, or even South Africa’s Afrikaners who responded to a fiscal crisis by electing the National Party which introduced apartheid in 1948. Today, you can see a populist, scattershot backlash, emerging in the form of the Republican-led “tea-bag” protests, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson’s heckling of Obama and the rock-star sized crowds generated by Palin’s book tour.
In a Dec. 20 interview with NBC’s Meet The Press, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog, the Daily Kos, said that his own polling showed that 86 percent of Republican voters plan on casting ballots in the 2010 midterm elections, compared to 56 percent of Democrats, and 32 percent of African Americans.
On the same show, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: “There’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign which was George Wallace. There is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation.”
Like the defiant, segregationist Alabama governor, Palin, the former Alaska governor, speaks the language of the white Southern and suburban voters who fear that the American way of life is under attack from an out-of-touch, Godless, effete and multiracial big-city crowd. With her folksy charisma and parochial values, Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues —from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the ‘30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs—who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.
According to a December Gallup poll, 44 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Palin, an increase of 4 percentage points from October, and narrowing the gap with Obama, whose favorability rating dropped 20 percentage points since his inauguration, to 49 percent.
As the Massachusetts election demonstrates, the problem is not, as much of the media alleges, that Obama and the Democrats have overreached. They haven’t gone far enough. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in last week’s Massachusetts election, tellingly, made health care “reform” the focus of his triumphant campaign, traveling the state in an old, GM pickup truck, arguing, quite accurately, that the Senate health care plan would cost Americans more money, not less. According to one exit poll, Obama voters who opted for the Republican candidate Scott Brown in Tuesday’s election, said, by a margin of 3-to-2, that the Senate health care proposal “doesn’t go far enough.” Eight of 10 voters in the state continue to want a public option.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Jon Jeter is the author of Flat Broke in the Free Market: How Globalization Fleeced Working People (WW Norton) and the co-author of A Day Late and A Dollar Short: High Hopes and Deferred Dreams in Obama’s “PostRacial America” (John Wiley and Sons).
NEWSWEEK: The Trouble with Barack
The Trouble With Barack
Obama is accused of being too radical, but he's been governing from the middle for a year. So why all the anger? Because he's leading with his head, not his heart.
By Jon Meacham
NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 22, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 1, 2010
First, a bit of personal history. I am a Southerner, a churchgoer, and a swing voter in presidential elections. I believe America is a center-right nation. I am at work on a biography of George H.W. Bush. I pay plenty of taxes already, thanks, and I have no automatic faith in government's capacity to solve problems. I share these details to make clear that I am not a reflexive lefty. Far from it.
Obama is accused of being too radical, but he's been governing from the middle for a year. So why all the anger? Because he's leading with his head, not his heart.
By Jon Meacham
NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 22, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 1, 2010
First, a bit of personal history. I am a Southerner, a churchgoer, and a swing voter in presidential elections. I believe America is a center-right nation. I am at work on a biography of George H.W. Bush. I pay plenty of taxes already, thanks, and I have no automatic faith in government's capacity to solve problems. I share these details to make clear that I am not a reflexive lefty. Far from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)